They won't care because the "art market" is mostly used for tax evasion and money laundering. Sellers and buyers do not care about the actual "art" and less about artists rights or ethics.
It's nonsense that they should try to sell any GenAI created images; they intrinsically can't be copyrighted since they're derivative works and are therefore worthless.
It's NFTs all over again.
This is attempting to normalize something that shouldn't be normalized.
I use ai in my art to blend my photos to create a new image, or with pencil sketches to make new sketches, apply textures to my pictures, to sharpen pictures, to enlarge pictures. People assuming in their ignorance that AI means text to image are showing their ignorance. It's just a new tool.
You may be right that some people assume all AI tools are the same, but the article itself is pretty clear that it's GenAI tools that are being objected to because of the mass copyright theft that was required to create them. I don't think the tools you described are problematic.
OK, but I had the impression that the artists quoted were only using genAI on their own pics. It stands to reason that presenting a computer gen result derived from other people's art as your own is indefensible. But the cynics take a baby/bathwater approach to the subject and it's far more nuanced.
I fully agree that these generated pictures aren't "art". But then there is a lot of painted or drawn pictures that don't qualify either.
Also, I have never met an artist that didn't see a lot of art before creating some. Is that "mass theft" as well?
Artists exist in a symbiotic community where they learn from each other and produce human bonding, an essence of a healthy society. what AI does is literally put artists out of work and steal their work.
Machines aren’t artists, so it’s super shitty to call actual artists “human artists”.
Looking at and analysing art is wholly different to being fed and algorithmically processing the works of unconsenting untold hundreds of thousands of artists, and then profiting off the output is disgusting.
But machines have nothing to say they simply follow orders. human artists make selective decisions based on having something to say visually.
I am deaf and sometimes use sign language which could reductively be described as collection of gestures yet it isn't when in use by me its individualised.
These machines are learning machines. They do not follow orders like typical computer programs would. The creation process is based on analysis of visual elements and their independent interpretation. Programmers don't even know how an AI arrived at a particular result.
All these machines are capable of doing is assembling they do not create the raw material they need to be fed it.
That they can out complex the programmers means nothing in terms of development of a human consciousness.
They do not think for themselves as there is no them-self.
People seem to think they are assembling bits of already given images. This is not how generative AI works. The power of these AI in fact is that it doesn't do that.
Machines don't decide to do stupid stuff, but humans do and in the process of stupidity they make a discovery that they see as "working" they cannot explain how it works because stupidity is risk taking with out any concept of outcome.
AI cannot recreate stupidity as its an intuitive concept.
“ There is no permission needed to look and analyse art.”
That’s true
But you try painting and then selling something that looks like a Picasso and see how far you get.
One tiny thing that needs to be done is for AI generative ‘art’ to have no value and no copyright.
If it’s worthless it’s pointless
The AI isn't studying. It's using prior work as a constraint when it generates random noise. A weight added to a probability machine. This is the "stable" part of Stable Diffusion.
Yes a human doesn't keep specific data points that are just an abstraction of the original work in their brain you're just training muscle memory generally
Quite right too. Artists are producers, not consumers, & their art is their livelihood & bears a copyright. If AI is copying their works, then this is a crime.
1) Just writing words doesn't make them an opinion, much less a coherently presented one. Linked post is pure nonsense.
2) There are many types of GenAI, and many uses for it. Some being destructive and unethical doesn't mean they all are.
Try again when you figure out what you're talking about.
When will they stop crying and move on with the times? If people want to buy AI art they should have that right. I feel so much "modern" art is complete rubbish (literally sometimes) but I don't want it banned. Art should never be limited, should we burn AI books?
"AI art" is not art, it's plagiaristic regurgitation of actual art, an amalgamated answer that copies, without acknowledgement, artists' work, to prompts entered by talentless thieving hacks.
Please tell me where precisely you think the AI gets its "art" from?
One man's art is another man's plagiaristic regurgitation.
where do you think "man" gets its "art" from? Modified plagiaristic regurgitation?
I believe that if someone wishes to "buy" art, in whatever form, created by an algorithm then they should be able to. Why should you be able to stop them?
I thought we were talking about creation and purchase of art. FYI I wouldn't want the mona lisa hanging in my house. I found it small and not to my taste. Of course, the artist isn't benefitting from the mass of money generated by it now and nor would he if it were sold either.
Cutting several different cakes stolen from different bakers and then putting all pieces together makes someone a thief and never a baker. Looking at someone's art and learning from it is like following a recipe to bake on your own. Generative AI only steals, it never learns. Fucking thieves.
Leonardo, Rembrandt, Picasso, Goya, Michelangelo and many others are in the background blinking and thinking " And how do you learn to do your shit, silly...??"
We are getting there.. In my opinion, we shouldn't ask to cancel it but it shall become a duty to tell if it is done by a human or an AI system... This to keep integrity and allow people to avoid it...
As a person with considerable experience of creating electronic music it is my experience that all musicians in that field begin their learning process by analysing and emulating the techniques of their favourite artists, what's the difference between a human being doing that and a computer?
Comments
It's NFTs all over again.
This is attempting to normalize something that shouldn't be normalized.
Also, I have never met an artist that didn't see a lot of art before creating some. Is that "mass theft" as well?
Completely different dynamics
Looking at and analysing art is wholly different to being fed and algorithmically processing the works of unconsenting untold hundreds of thousands of artists, and then profiting off the output is disgusting.
I am deaf and sometimes use sign language which could reductively be described as collection of gestures yet it isn't when in use by me its individualised.
That they can out complex the programmers means nothing in terms of development of a human consciousness.
They do not think for themselves as there is no them-self.
AI cannot recreate stupidity as its an intuitive concept.
That’s true
But you try painting and then selling something that looks like a Picasso and see how far you get.
One tiny thing that needs to be done is for AI generative ‘art’ to have no value and no copyright.
If it’s worthless it’s pointless
When training an AI you tend to keep your training database for future refinement. That data was not legally sourced.
(Note that I'm not arguing that AI training isn't theft, but that simple equivalencies are crazy)
2) There are many types of GenAI, and many uses for it. Some being destructive and unethical doesn't mean they all are.
Try again when you figure out what you're talking about.
🤣
All AI generated content is trash of no human value.
Please tell me where precisely you think the AI gets its "art" from?
where do you think "man" gets its "art" from? Modified plagiaristic regurgitation?
I believe that if someone wishes to "buy" art, in whatever form, created by an algorithm then they should be able to. Why should you be able to stop them?
You can't order a Domino's, and then claim to have cooked a pizza.
And you can't feed schite into a plagiarism programme, and then claim to have created art.
It's theft, it's soulless slop, and it's destroying the planet.
@patrickamadon.bsky.social 😉
To not see that Trump/Musk have zero (0) respect for the artist is to not have vision. & if you have no vision then, by definition, you are no artist.